Replies

You DO know that CR is a Naderite pub, right?

Does that mean they're always wrong? Here's a JAMA article that's not too old.

Arsenic Exposure and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes in US Adults

Conclusions After adjustment for biomarkers of seafood intake, total urine arsenic was associated with increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes. This finding supports the hypothesis that low levels of exposure to inorganic arsenic in drinking water, a widespread exposure worldwide, may play a role in diabetes prevalence. Prospective studies in populations exposed to a range of inorganic arsenic levels are needed to establish whether this association is causal.

My computer is too old to do a decent and recent search at PubMed. Try entering arsenic and diabetes at Pubmed. The results came up the most recent first when I last used it.

There’s the crowd which says too much sugar when you’re young makes it more likely to get adult onset diabetes. If they’re right, and if arsenic-tainted juice figures in that, the sugar may be the link, rather than the arsenic itself or at least alone.

Much of the arsenic comes from pesticide IIRC and possibly usage of different pesticides could alleviate the problem. I don’t know why people scream about malathion, for example, but barely give a peep about arsenicals.

Does that mean they're always wrong? Here's a JAMA article that's not too old.

This article claims 10 ppb of arsenic in juice, which is still at the limit the World Health Organization deems safe. One Taiwan study claims 150 ppb is the level where cancer mortality increases.

My post was prompted by the fact that arsenic is a naturally occurring mineral, and naturally exists in groundwater. Some herbicides contain arsenic, and perhaps that arsenic can be eliminated. But other than that, what can be done about arsenic? How much money would it take to go from 10 ppb to 9 ppb, even though both levels are considered safe? If the arsenic is coming from the water, then it could be very expensive, and with little real improvement in safety.

If the costs of going from 10 to 9 ppb are passed to the consumer, will consumers switch to other drinks which are even less healthy, like soda?

Could the money spent to reduce the arsenic from 10 to 9 ppb be used in some other way which would save even more lives?

I'm out of town and on a lousy connection. Question: is the home tap water filtration issue addressed vis-a-vis it's effectiveness in the removal of arsenic from the municipal water supply? I know our tap water tastes like an alligator took a whiz in it (which isn't too far from the truth), so I can only imagine what else is in it, even after being processed by the local plant. We currently use two pitchers (one Brita, one Pur), for most kitchen uses. I'd like to know if that's doing anything else but making the water taste better.